Sewers: Private Sector

Anne McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 
	(1)  how many pumping stations there are;
	(2)  what estimate she has made of the monetary value of the private drains, sewers and pump stations that are due to transfer to sewerage companies from 1 October 2011;
	(3)  when she expects Ofwat to publish its plan for the transfer of private drains, sewers and pump stations to sewerage companies;
	(4)  what plans she has for the implementation of the transfer of private drains, sewers and pump stations to sewerage companies;
	(5)  what recent representations she has received from the drainage industry on the proposed transfer of private drains and sewers to sewerage companies;
	(6)  what estimate she has made of the likely effects on small and medium-sized enterprises in the waste-water sector of the transfer of private sewers and lateral drains to sewerage companies;
	(7)  what consultation her Department undertook with the pumping station industry prior to the publication of the draft Water Industry (Schemes for Adoption of Private Sewers) Regulations 2011;
	(8)  what assessment she has made of the likely effects on the incidence of flooding of the proposed transfer of private drains, sewers and pump stations to sewerage companies;
	(9)  what assessment she has made of the average change in water bills of the implementation of the proposed transfer of funding for private drains and sewers to sewerage companies; and if she will make a statement;

Richard Benyon: On 26 August the Government and the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) jointly published a consultation paper on draft regulations for transfer to the ownership of the water and sewerage companies of private sewers and lateral drains which drain to the public sewerage system in England and Wales. The consultation, supplemented by a series of workshops held jointly with WAG, seeks final responses by 18 November. To date, DEFRA has received many representations from the drainage industry. The current consultation follows earlier consultations on the subject in 2003 and 2007, to which DEFRA also received many responses, and is available via the DEFRA website.
	In addition to the formal consultation process, DEFRA has been working closely with a steering group including the water industry regulator Ofwat, the Environment Agency, Water UK, the Consumer Council for Water, WAG, other Government Departments and representatives of local authorities, the insurance industry, house builders and the drainage industry. DEFRA has also held meetings with more specialist groups including representatives of the pump installation and maintenance industry, to hear their views and gather evidence. Representations from the independent drainage sector have focused on concern about the approach taken by the water and sewerage companies to the procurement of maintenance services after transfer.
	The current impact assessment was published with the August consultation paper. It estimates the transfer to result in an increase in annual sewerage bills in the range £3-£14. This includes the cost of the transfer of private pumping stations, based on an estimated number of 22,000. It also contains a Small Firms Impact Test and considers the benefits to householders including reduced incidence of blockages, which can result in sewer flooding. It is not anticipated that incidence of surface water flooding will be significantly affected. The impact assessment will be updated in the light of the outcome of the consultation.

Prisoners: Heroin

John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many  (a) drug caches including heroin,  (b) needles used for drug taking,  (c) prisoners testing positive for heroin use and  (d) prisoners who on a first test did not test positive for heroin use but subsequently tested positive for such use were detected in each prison in the last 10 years.

Crispin Blunt: NOMS records centrally the number of drugs and drug taking paraphernalia seized in prisons but this cannot be disaggregated to provide the number of  (a) drug caches, including heroin and  (b) needles used for drug taking seized in each prison in the last 10 years without incurring disproportionate cost.
	Data relating to  (d) how many prisoners who on a first test did not test positive for heroin use but subsequently tested positive for such use are not available.
	The data for how many samples tested positive for opiate use, including heroin, under the prison mandatory drug testing programme in each prison in the last 10 financial years is shown in the following table. To disaggregate the data to show those samples positive for heroin from those positive for other opiates would require a detailed investigation of every prison's locally held records, which would be at disproportionate cost.
	The figures contained in the table have been drawn from administrative data systems. Although care is taken when processing data, the detail collected is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large scale recording system. This data are not subject to audit. A space indicates that there was no testing in that period at that establishment.
	
		
			  Positive drug tests due to opiates across the prison estate from 2000 to 2010 
			  Financial year  2000-01  2001-02  2002-03  2003-04  2004-05  2005-06  2006-07  2007-08  2008-09  2009-10 
			 Acklington 76 80 28 25 39 41 28 24 29 25 
			 Albany 1 2 0 10 5 6 17 13 18 20 
			 Altcourse 76 120 92 75 88 74 127 231 154 122 
			 Ashfield 29 31 10 10 3 3 12 7 0 4 
			 Ashwell 99 31 20 21 39 39 25 15 30 11 
			 Askham Grange 13 20 6 0 15 9 13 9 3 6 
			 Aylesbury 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Bedford 55 57 19 25 25 40 75 44 28 26 
			 Belmarsh 102 91 68 22 35 24 38 33 25 21 
			 Birmingham 273 96 29 141 172 124 203 121 94 91 
			 Blakenhurst 305 216 396 214 287 378 245 237 - - 
			 Blantyre House 1 4 6 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 
			 Blundeston 16 34 21 10 17 27 21 29 26 28 
			 Brinsford 14 15 16 5 3 0 0 1 0 1 
			 Bristol 40 41 25 18 52 26 44 57 56 48 
			 Brixton 116 77 51 36 32 52 53 42 80 97 
			 Brockhill 27 15 22 19 25 29 18 15 - - 
			 Bronzefield - - - - 26 28 33 18 8 13 
			 Buckley Hall 72 57 30 33 33 21 86 139 57 27 
			 Bullingdon 82 75 24 59 59 94 86 131 90 136 
			 Bullwood Hall 25 16 24 1 3 1 1 0 0 1 
			 Bure - - - - - - - - - 1 
			 Camp Hill 88 60 17 17 27 20 25 29 43 31 
			 Canterbury 66 55 47 26 17 43 21 1 2 0 
			 Cardiff 55 45 32 42 33 60 99 101 48 48 
			 Castington 3 6 7 3 3 5 2 0 2 0 
			 Channings Wood 39 53 4 5 23 11 33 50 67 73 
			 Chelmsford 23 38 13 12 37 44 35 39 34 22 
			 Coldingley 18 25 25 18 44 46 42 44 53 70 
			 Cookham Wood 23 7 9 2 15 12 13 2 0 0 
			 Dartmoor 23 50 53 26 41 24 51 78 81 40 
			 Deerbolt 9 8 4 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 
			 Doncaster 224 318 177 222 154 144 236 133 63 72 
			 Dorchester 24 28 13 22 15 21 29 23 2 13 
			 Dovegate - 57 70 74 84 120 139 185 103 80 
			 Dover 2 0 - - - - - - - - 
			 Downview 32 10 38 20 32 23 5 22 37 18 
			 Drake Hall 11 31 21 10 26 13 33 23 7 12 
			 Durham 110 80 38 20 20 34 41 57 43 44 
			 East Sutton Park 8 11 0 6 3 7 0 2 4 2 
			 Eastwood Park 60 15 6 25 21 37 47 38 34 23 
			 Edmonds Hill - - - 16 17 14 13 22 25 32 
			 Elmley 192 136 79 37 75 55 74 158 162 122 
			 Erlestoke 35 30 18 18 28 35 32 45 54 37 
			 Everthorpe 98 91 39 33 40 41 103 97 50 34 
			 Exeter 35 39 10 12 12 18 17 17 18 10 
			 Featherstone 102 65 39 19 38 59 101 224 86 63 
			 Feltham 2 4 1 0 2 5 8 3 2 5 
			 Ford 21 24 38 32 29 63 64 74 30 31 
			 Forest Bank 199 213 138 177 261 349 360 363 200 155 
			 Foston Hall 89 35 5 9 29 25 22 19 8 19 
			 Frankland 56 61 34 25 38 23 31 61 33 50 
			 Full Sutton 48 60 29 28 34 20 39 48 37 30 
			 Garth 99 85 29 18 48 88 74 76 97 81 
			 Gartree 26 12 6 16 15 14 29 23 12 25 
			 Glen Parva 78 50 13 3 6 4 1 4 1 2 
			 Gloucester 25 18 33 11 30 20 29 50 23 20 
			 Grendon 1 5 3 11 6 8 10 5 2 4 
			 Guys Marsh 37 23 25 28 30 25 45 62 83 98 
			 Haslar 3 0 0 - - - - - - - 
			 Haverigg 50 72 44 18 50 77 63 106 152 83 
			 Hewell - - - - - - - - 115 59 
			 Hewell Grange 18 4 7 17 19 19 8 6 - - 
			 High Down 208 77 42 44 65 59 23 31 31 65 
			 Highpoint 55 63 42 22 38 50 104 76 77 28 
			 Hindley 3 8 2 3 2 3 4 5 2 9 
			 Hollesley Bay 14 5 10 13 9 17 9 14 27 16 
			 Holloway 38 25 13 11 16 25 33 15 23 32 
			 Holme House 116 77 59 71 50 31 48 80 50 61 
			 Hull 51 43 35 19 48 52 27 34 15 6 
			 Huntercombe 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 
			 Kennet - - - - - - - 31 29 21 
			 Kingston 9 16 8 7 15 18 26 23 12 10 
			 Kirkham 47 47 48 70 46 41 65 51 44 23 
			 Kirklevington 7 5 5 0 18 3 7 7 6 7 
			 Lancaster 46 71 66 20 30 14 29 43 27 20 
			 Lancaster Farms 2 3 2 4 4 1 1 1 1 0 
			 Latchmere House 13 0 2 5 3 3 3 2 2 1 
			 Leeds 159 126 97 117 123 70 50 61 56 61 
			 Leicester 58 39 13 16 23 15 23 14 15 23 
			 Lewes 116 92 25 45 59 63 101 130 98 73 
			 Leyhill 72 97 69 114 100 63 52 56 51 37 
			 Lincoln 89 61 24 39 94 58 27 51 48 37 
			 Lindholme 77 52 75 30 49 35 52 83 40 35 
			 Littlehey 49 25 11 14 15 11 16 24 20 18 
			 Liverpool 309 228 207 245 368 374 216 220 144 84 
			 Long Lartin 116 125 90 73 64 76 77 82 44 32 
			 Low Newton 79 58 29 16 31 40 12 16 9 6 
			 Lowdham Grange 58 68 28 25 36 55 59 79 60 49 
			 Maidstone 22 27 23 37 32 58 40 52 37 9 
			 Manchester 249 243 214 190 153 161 102 126 104 160 
			 Moorland 30 38 29 23 34 20 31 43 18 3 
			 Moorland Open 6 10 3 11 16 32 7 6 3 5 
			 Morton Hall 5 23 10 12 6 7 9 3 2 4 
			 Mount 47 55 63 24 52 181 185 117 86 61 
			 New Hall 44 32 12 16 36 28 21 21 8 21 
			 North Sea Camp 20 26 18 44 30 36 30 8 8 12 
			 Northallerton 8 6 6 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 
			 Norwich 67 53 27 22 37 30 28 16 18 29 
			 Nottingham 86 56 39 33 25 63 79 106 55 28 
			 Onley 2 0 3 0 15 32 45 45 19 12 
			 Parc 19 4 12 26 14 18 18 23 18 65 
			 Parkhurst 57 34 37 30 21 37 25 26 27 15 
			 Pentonville 103 173 85 53 92 115 105 130 109 100 
			 Peterborough Female - - - - - 52 48 31 31 19 
			 Peterborough Male - - - - - 55 133 178 90 113 
			 Portland 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 
			 Preston 110 69 35 35 93 115 95 84 69 50 
			 Ranby 82 64 62 40 43 50 108 198 83 56 
			 Reading 2 4 2 0 3 2 1 3 0 0 
			 Risley 155 165 190 149 194 163 105 88 80 60 
			 Rochester 9 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 
			 Rye Hill 1 89 19 27 28 27 57 42 34 33 
			 Send 12 14 4 5 15 3 14 23 13 5 
			 Shepton Mallet 26 17 17 2 4 2 0 6 5 2 
			 Shrewsbury 80 42 68 64 67 38 62 42 50 29 
			 Spring Hill 13 9 7 9 20 33 15 16 18 10 
			 Stafford 162 140 84 69 78 134 141 110 43 26 
			 Standford Hill 23 38 28 23 31 46 70 24 23 16 
			 Stocken 107 84 15 10 21 23 37 54 21 28 
			 Stoke Heath 4 0 2 2 1 4 2 3 1 1 
			 Styal 70 90 36 39 83 141 202 96 44 50 
			 Sudbury 89 117 91 108 128 86 70 112 65 69 
			 Swaleside 121 99 33 47 109 63 56 118 63 70 
			 Swansea 7 22 20 21 21 12 9 24 22 16 
			 Swinfen Hall 3 1 0 0 7 6 5 2 0 0 
			 Thorn Cross 5 1 4 2 1 1 0 0 2 2 
			 Usk/Prescoed 5 7 8 15 18 24 23 17 13 24 
			 Verne 21 25 4 7 23 10 4 9 10 15 
			 Wakefield 14 3 5 6 8 8 16 29 17 22 
			 Wandsworth 101 108 55 74 86 61 52 49 75 65 
			 Warren Hill - - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Wayland 42 57 30 26 13 23 36 33 46 50 
			 Wealstun 112 69 77 29 63 53 53 41 30 14 
			 Weare 44 42 16 7 10 8 - - - - 
			 Wellingborough 129 65 17 11 31 26 31 55 42 43 
			 Wellington 2 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 
			 Wetherby 3 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Whatton 5 2 2 2 3 3 4 9 9 8 
			 Whitemoor 103 100 48 26 34 24 59 60 37 30 
			 Winchester 72 39 10 27 35 24 20 29 36 68 
			 Wolds 26 26 13 21 18 20 27 36 26 23 
			 Woodhill 40 58 14 25 36 32 60 80 80 86 
			 Wormwood Scrubs 38 30 24 54 73 57 72 44 70 53 
			 Wymott 89 60 26 73 125 156 98 134 92 83

Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency

Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he plans to announce the date on which the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency will close; and which of the agency's functions he proposes to incorporate into his Department.

Nick Gibb: The Secretary of State announced on 27 May 2010 that he would abolish the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency (QCDA). He also confirmed that certain of the QCDA's work, notably the delivery of national curriculum tests, will need to continue. The abolition of the QCDA is subject to legislation which we intend to introduce in January 2011. Subject to the will of Parliament, closure would follow soon after Royal Assent.
	The Secretary of State announced on the 5 November that he was establishing an executive agency within the Department for Education which would be responsible for statutory assessment and testing for pupils up to 14 (Key Stage 3). I wrote to the chair of the Select Committee for Education to inform him of the new arrangements. A copy of the letter has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. We will announce further details about the future of any other areas of work that will need to continue beyond the abolition of the QCDA in due course.

Council Tax: Scotland

Ann McKechin: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on what occasions he has discussed the devolution of council tax rebate with  (a) the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities,  (b) local authorities in Scotland and  (c) the Scottish Executive since his appointment.

Steve Webb: No formal discussions have yet taken place with local authorities, the associations representing them, or with the devolved Administrations about the proposal announced in the spending review to localise support for council tax benefit in local authorities in England, Scotland, and Wales. Preliminary discussions have taken place at official level with the Scottish Office and the Government will have discussions with the devolved Administrations as part of the policy development process.

Disability Living Allowance: Medical Examinations

Alison Seabeck: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many and what proportion of appeals against medical assessments for disability living allowance undertaken by each company contracted to perform such assessment for his Department were upheld in the most recent 12 month period for which records are available.

Maria Miller: Around 80% of applications have additional information requested. Some of this is medical assessment. We are unable to say how many and what proportion of successful appeals there were against medical assessments for disability living allowance (DLA). DLA appeals can be made against all decisions and the management information systems of the Pension, Disability and Carers Service (PDCS) and the Tribunal Service do not go to the level of detail that would identify those appeals specifically related to medical assessments.
	Only one company is contracted to provide medical assessments for disability living allowance for the Department. Atos Healthcare was awarded the contract commencing September 2005 following open competitive tender for a period of up to 12 years.
	 Note:
	The figure for applications is for the 2009-10 financial year.
	 Source:
	Department for Work and Pensions-2009-10 RDA60205/60209 report-DLA Management Information Statistics.

Housing Benefit

Stephen Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 
	(1)  how much in housing benefit has been paid to individuals in  (a) Wimbledon constituency and  (b) the London Borough of Merton in each year since 1996-97;
	(2)  how much was paid in housing benefit to individuals in  (a) Wimbledon constituency and  (b) the London Borough of Merton for a (i) one bedroom, (ii) two bedroom, (iii) three bedroom and (iv) four bedroom property in each year since 1996-97.

Steve Webb: Housing benefit expenditure data by parliamentary constituency and number of bedrooms is not available. The available information is shown in the following table.
	Benefit expenditure data can also be found at the following URL:
	http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd4/index.php?page= hbandctb_expenditure
	
		
			  Housing benefit expenditure London borough of Merton 
			   £ million (nominal terms) 
			 1996-97 41.6 
			 1997-98 38.3 
			 1998-99 36.5 
			 1999-2000 36.2 
			 2000-01 34.9 
			 2001-02 35.0 
			 2002-03 38.7 
			 2003-04 41.4 
			 2004-05 45.4 
			 2005-06 49.4 
			 2006-07 52.3 
			 2007-08 56.6 
			 2008-09 61.5 
			 2009-10 71.9 
			  Source: Local Authority Subsidy Returns Housing Benefit expenditure tables can be found at the following URL: http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd4/index.php?page=hbandctb_expenditure

Civil Servants: East Ayrshire

Cathy Jamieson: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what recent consideration his Department has given to relocating civil service jobs to  (a) East Ayrshire and (b) Kilmarnock and Loudoun constituency; and if he will make a statement.

Francis Maude: As at end March 2010, 1,127 civil service posts had been relocated to Scotland, although none of these went to the East Ayrshire or Kilmarnock and Loudoun constituencies. There are currently no plans to relocate further posts. However the Government are committed to achieving efficiency savings through further rationalisation and reduction of Government's presence in London and elsewhere, and this could lead to further posts being relocated.

Departmental Policy

Tom Watson: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what departmental policy reviews his Department has undertaken since 6 May 2010; on what date each such review  (a) was announced and  (b) is expected to publish its findings; what estimate he has made of the cost of each such review; who has been appointed to lead each such review; to what remuneration each review leader is entitled; how many (i) full-time equivalent civil servants and (ii) seconded staff are working on each such review; from which organisations such staff have been seconded; and how much on average such seconded staff will be paid for their work on the review.

Francis Maude: The following independent reviews have been undertaken since 6 May and are based in the Cabinet Office:
	 Review on Poverty and Life Chances
	 (a) The Prime Minister announced the review on 5 June 2010.
	 (b) The final report will be delivered in mid December and the anticipated cost is in the order of £20,000, excluding civil service salaries. The review is led by Frank Field MP who does not receive any remuneration for this role but is entitled to reasonable travel expenses.
	 (i) The team consists of five full-time and two part-time civil servants.
	 (ii) All staff have been loaned from home Departments. None are seconded from outside Whitehall.
	 Review on Early Intervention Delivery
	 (a) The review was announced on 28 July 2010 by the Work and Pensions Secretary.
	 (b) The review will report to the Government's Social Justice Cabinet Committee in two stages: (i) in January 2011 on models of best practice around early intervention; and (ii) by May 2011 on new ways to fund early intervention. In addition to staff costs, the anticipated cost of the review is expected to be less than £50,000. The review is led by Graham Allen MP who is not being paid for his time but will be entitled to reasonable travel expenses.
	 (i) The team consists of five full-time and one part-time civil servant.
	 (ii) All staff have been loaned from home Departments. None are seconded from outside Whitehall although staff costs are expected to include £36,600 to be used on expert advice from the WAVE Trust and the Social Research Unit in Dartington.

Royal National Lifeboat Institution

Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office whether the Royal National Lifeboat Institution is eligible to receive funding from  (a) the Big Society Bank and  (b) the Transition Fund for the voluntary sector.

Nick Hurd: The Big Society Bank will not deal directly with frontline organisations. Instead it will operate at a wholesale level through social investment intermediaries to catalyse growth in the social investment market, encouraging mainstream investors to invest in social enterprises and broadening the finance options open to the sector. This means it may indirectly invest in the Royal National Lifeboat Institution.
	The Transition Fund will give organisations the breathing space they need to adjust to the new spending environment. It is a chance to review the ways they are working and prepare for a future where there will be more opportunities to engage in the Big Society agenda. The Fund will be delivered by the BIG Fund, the non Lottery funding operation of the Big Lottery Fund, and will be open to organisations with an income of between £50,000 and £10 million who are most vulnerable to short term reductions in public spending. Detailed eligibility criteria will be available shortly and we expect applications to open at the end of this month.

Middle East: Peace Negotiations

Grahame Morris: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to  (a) the Israeli Government and  (b) the US Administration on the need for negotiations with the Palestinians for the purposes of securing a peace settlement; and if he will make a statement.

Alistair Burt: During my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's visit to the region on 2 to 4 November, he emphasised to both the Israeli and Palestinian Prime Ministers the need to persist with direct negotiations and the risk that the window would otherwise close on a two state solution. He underlined to the Government of Israel the need to announce a new moratorium on settlements so that talks can continue. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary (Mr Hague) discusses these issues regularly with Secretary Clinton and Senator Mitchell.

Official Visits: Diplomatic Immunity

Denis MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Ministers of foreign governments have immunity from arrest during visits to the UK.

Henry Bellingham: Whether a visiting Minister of a foreign government is entitled to immunity from arrest in the UK will depend on the status of the person concerned, whether they are travelling on official government business, as well as on other considerations. By virtue of their office, immunities will attach to visiting Heads of State, Heads of Government and Ministers of Foreign Affairs, as well as, by extension, other Ministers who travel by virtue of their office. The extent to which such immunities may attach to other visiting senior officials will fall to be determined case-by-case depending on their status and the reasons for their visit to the UK.

Armed Forces: Kent

Helen Grant: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the number of residents of Maidstone and the Weald constituency serving in the armed forces; and how many of those are under the age of 21.

Andrew Robathan: Residential address information for serving personnel is not held with reference to parliamentary constituency and there are questions over the accuracy and completeness of what is held, as the information is maintained by the individual Service person.
	Further information on the stationed location of UK Regular Forces is published quarterly by the Ministry of Defence which can be found at the following website:
	http://www.dasa.mod.uk/applications/newWeb/www/index.php?page=48&pubType=0&thiscontent=100&Publish Time=09:30:00&date=2010-08-26&disText=01%20Jul% 202010&from=listing&topDate=2010-08-26
	I will place a copy of the publication in the Library of the House.

Departmental Pay

Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was paid to officials in his Department and its non-departmental public bodies in bonuses and other payments in addition to salary in each year since 1997; how many officials received such payments; and what the monetary value was of the largest 20 payments made in each such year.

Andrew Robathan: The information is as follows:
	Non-consolidated performance awards-MOD: A close and effective link between pay and performance is a key element of the reward arrangements for the civil service. The performance element of pay is colloquially known as a bonus, but it is a misleading description because the performance-related element of pay is not additional, it is part of the departmental pay bill.
	For the senior civil service (SCS) performance incentives are paid primarily as non-consolidated performance payments. Any award is based on a judgment of how well an individual has performed against their peers and awards are made to those judged to have made the greatest in-year contribution to business objectives. There is no restriction on the nature of the contribution but it must benefit the Department or defence more widely. Recommendations for awards are considered by moderation committees and must be linked to clear evidence of delivery.
	All satisfactory performers at SCS level were eligible to be considered for a non-consolidated performance award in line with Cabinet Office guidelines and the MOD pay strategy.
	Financial year 2003-04 was the first year in which the MOD paid non-consolidated performance awards to any of its staff.
	The following table details how much was paid to members of the SCS in non-consolidated performance payments by financial year.
	Senior fixed term employees are individuals who are recruited through fair and open competition from outside the civil service. Those employed as senior fixed term appointees (FTAs) are on individual contracts and have a higher percentage of pay set to performance awards which are judged against stringent and stretching delivery based objectives. Some have staged payments and it is now usual to pay a smaller annual performance award with the remainder deferred for two to three years and judged against the delivery of medium to longer term objectives. Performance is judged by line management with assistance from senior officials, stakeholders, remuneration committees and in some cases internal audit.
	Details of how much has been paid in non-consolidated awards and to how many SCS each year are shown in tables 1 and 2. Table 3 shows the monetary values of the largest non-consolidated payments made in each year to the combined SCS population of permanent staff and fixed term appointees.
	
		
			  Table 1-SCS permanent staff 
			   Performance year 
			   2009-10  2008-09  2007-08  2006-07  2005-06  2004-05  2003-04 
			   Financial year 
			   2010-11  2009-10  2008-09  2007-08  2006-07  2005-06  2004-05 
			 Number of awards paid 169 195 187 186 181 181 136 
			 Value of awards paid (£) 995,500 1,594,500 1,501,700 1,325,700 1,178,500 899,822 711,737 
		
	
	
		
			  Table  2 -SCS  fixed term appointees 
			   SCS FTA  performance year 
			   2009-10  2008-09  2007-08  2006-07  2005-06  2004-05  2003-04 
			   Financial year 
			   2010-11  2009-10  2008-09  2007-08  2006-07  2005-06  2004-05 
			 Number of awards paid (1)17 27 16 10 12 16 13 
			 Value of awards paid (£) 338,122 838,393 333,915 78,874 80,478 119,688 80,347 
			 (1) Six yet to be decided 
		
	
	
		
			  Table 3-Top 20 highest non-consolidated awards for combined SCS population 
			  Financial year  £ 
			 2010-11 49,937 
			  49,900 
			  35,113 
			  25,755 
			  24,360 
			  22,153 
			  17,000 
			  15,750 
			  15,605 
			  15,000 
			  15,000 
			  13,800 
			  12,500 
			  12,500 
			  12,500 
			  12,500 
			  12,500 
			  12,500 
			  12,485 
			  10,674 
			   
			 2009-10 84,563 
			  75,000 
			  72,540 
			  55,350 
			  50,000 
			  50,000 
			  48,720 
			  48,000 
			  31,470 
			  30,750 
			  30,000 
			  30,000 
			  25,765 
			  24,101 
			  22,888 
			  21,337 
			  21,033 
			  16,200 
			  15,000 
			  15,000 
			   
			 2008-09 88,296 
			  61,250 
			  50,000 
			  48,000 
			  37,675 
			  31,703 
			  30,780 
			  30,000 
			  30,000 
			  30,000 
			  27,600 
			  24,000 
			  23,085 
			  22,085 
			  22,000 
			  21,546 
			  20,480 
			  19,000 
			  17,163 
			  17,091 
			   
			 2007-08 63,000 
			  50,000 
			  48,000 
			  24,000 
			  21,000 
			  20,000 
			  18,468 
			  17,716 
			  17,600 
			  17,600 
			  17,340 
			  15,450 
			  15,341 
			  14,500 
			  14,500 
			  12,750 
			  12,750 
			  12,240 
			  10,690 
			  10,000 
			   
			 2006-07 19,253 
			  16,000 
			  14,721 
			  14,000 
			  14,000 
			  14,000 
			  14,000 
			  12,546 
			  11,000 
			  11,000 
			  11,000 
			  11,000 
			  10,000 
			  10,000 
			  10,000 
			  10,000 
			  10,000 
			  10,000 
			  10,000 
			  10,000 
			   
			 2005-06 14,340 
			  12,250 
			  10,000 
			  10,000 
			  10,000 
			  10,000 
			  9,000 
			  9,000 
			  9.000 
			  7,863 
			  7,500 
			  7,500 
			  7,500 
			  7,500 
			  7,500 
			  7,500 
			  7,500 
			  7,500 
			  7,500 
			  7,500 
			   
			 2004-05 11,358 
			  10,445 
			  9.821 
			  9,203 
			  8,777 
			  8.759 
			  8.695 
			  8.650 
			  8.600 
			  8,540 
			  8,463 
			  8,365 
			  8,256 
			  8,226 
			  8,226 
			  8,125 
			  7.400 
			  7,370 
			  7,069 
			  7,004 
		
	
	For staff below the SCS, non-consolidated performance awards are paid to staff who meet the eligibility criteria. Higher levels of award are available for those who have contributed most to the business. These awards are distributed on the basis of relative assessment among peers and are designed to encourage continuous high attainment against stretching objectives.
	The MOD also operates an in year non-consolidated payment scheme, the special bonus scheme (SBS), which rewards eligible MOD civilians for exceptional performance in a specific task or for the achievement of a professional qualification the use of which benefits MOD and the individual. Separate arrangements apply to Ministry of Defence police (MDP) officers.
	In 2007 the Department moved to a new pay system and the ability to interrogate payments made through the SBS before this date has been diminished and therefore any effort now to try and access this data would require a disproportionate cost. SBS data is though available for financial years 2003-04 to 2006-07 because it was reported in previous parliamentary questions.
	The following table details the total value of payments made to staff below the SCS by way of non consolidated performance payments and SBS awards by financial year.
	
		
			  Financial year  Total value of awards made (£)  Total number of awards made( 1) 
			 2003-04 24,113,406 39,369 
			 2004-05 33,947,217 46,269 
			 2005-06 43,038,937 49,093 
			 2006-07 41,060,624 55,339 
			 2007-08 46,256,490 61,878 
			 2008-09 47,516,913 71,940 
			 2009-10 44,231,916 66,585 
			 2010-11 0 0 
			 (1) It is not possible to state how many individuals received awards since the data is held as number of awards made and not the number of recipients.  Note: Figures for financial year 2010-11 will not be available before 30 April 2011 since SBS awards are payable in year. 
		
	
	This response excludes information on staff below the SCS in MOD trading funds which have separate pay delegations.
	With the exception of the National Museum of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force Museum, figures for the Department's non-departmental public bodies are included in the figures above.
	Like the MOD, financial year 2003-04 was the first year in which non-consolidated performance awards were paid to staff at the National Museum of the Royal Navy. The following table details the total value of payments made to staff by way of non consolidated performance payments awards by financial year.
	
		
			  Financial year  Total value of awards made (£)  Number of staff receiving awards  Value of largest 20 payments 
			 2003-04 12,100 19 £425-£1,300 
			 2004-05 19,650 21 £625-£2,100 
			 2005-06 21,860 20 £625-£2,025 
			 2006-07 20,525 23 £300-£2,900 
			 2007-08 21,750 29 £400-£1,560 
			 2008-09 27,020 43 £400-£1,565 
			 2009-10 5,203 37 All £141 
		
	
	The National Museum of the Royal Navy has no special bonus scheme.
	The Museum does not keep records going back to 1997, but since 2004 non-consolidated performance awards and other payments have been available for staff employed by the museum and its trading subsidiary through one or more of the following:
	a special bonus scheme (typically £7,000 per annum in total has been set aside and payments to staff have been of the order of £250 to £1,000, generally under 10 awards each year),
	performance related pay (where the level of award has varied between a percentage-based amount or cash sum-both non consolidated-and is linked to the annual appraisal-individual payments typically being between £400 and £1,000 although in individual cases have been up to £3,000), costing the Museum approximately £100,000 per year,
	'incentivised' contracts for key trading subsidiary managers (head of retail or head of corporate events) where payments have varied from zero to over £3,000, depending on the trading subsidiary's performance and a percentage-based award for more junior trading subsidiary staff (typically 1% of salary) the cost falling on the trading subsidiary,
	in the case of the director general (until this year) through the non-consolidated performance award scheme applicable to senior civil servants, again linked to the annual appraisal process where payments in excess of £10,000 have been made, No award was made in 2009 and the system does not apply to the newly-appointed director general.
	The largest payments made were to the director general under the conditions set out in the last paragraph and the directors (where performance awards were percentage-based) although these would have generally been below £5,000.
	Other payments: The Department currently has over 500 pay-related allowances and payments in addition to salary available to civilian staff. The majority of which are listed on the People, Pay and Pensions Agency services website:
	http://www.pppaservices.qinetiq-tim.com/https@ knowledge.chris.r.mil.uk/pppa/index@page=content&id =us131&cat=pay_and_expenses&actp=list.htm
	In addition allowances and payments in addition to salary in regard to civilian travel and subsistence claims and transfer allowances are payable. These are listed on the PPPA services website:
	http://www.pppaservices.qinetiq-tim.com/https@knowledge .chris.r.mil.uk/pppa/index@page=content&id=pr200&cat= travel_and_subsistence&actp= list.htm
	Information on the monetary value of each type of allowance and payment in each year since 1997 is not held in the format requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost for such a large number of allowances and payments. Information is available from July 2007, but will take a short while to compile. I will write to my hon. Friend with the details as soon as possible.

Military Aircraft

Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 
	(1)  what the planned role for maritime patrol aircraft has been in the event of a confrontation between a Royal Navy taskforce and a hostile taskforce  (a) preparatory to and  (b) in the course of engaging in action at sea;
	(2)  what the role of the Nimrod Mark 2 in detecting potentially hostile submarines has been; what assessment he has made of its effectiveness in fulfilling this role; what provision will be made to fulfil it in future; and if he will make a statement;
	(3)  by what method a maritime patrol aircraft capability will be reconstituted in the event of a strategic requirement to do so.

Peter Luff: Maritime patrol aircraft, including the Nimrod MR2, have contributed to the protection of deployed Maritime Task Groups by tracking submarines and surface ships, and possessing the capability to attack hostile submarines.
	I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 28 October 2010,  Official Report, columns 450-451W, to the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann), the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) and the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). A range of military assets will be used to mitigate the capability gap which emerged as a result of the withdrawal from service of Nimrod MR2. Further requirements which might emerge as a result of any increase in threat will be considered as part of the Department's capability planning process.

EU Justice and Home Affairs

Dominic Raab: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers the European Commission has to monitor UK compliance with those EU Justice and Home Affairs instruments to which the UK has opted in, under the provisions of the Lisbon treaty; and what jurisdiction the European Court of Justice has over such monitoring.

James Brokenshire: There are specific provisions in the treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ('TFEU') to enable the European Commission to monitor UK compliance with EU Justice and Home Affairs instruments to which the UK has opted in under the provisions of the Lisbon treaty. There may also be provisions in specific instruments that provide provisions for the Commission to monitor compliance with that particular instrument.
	Article 258 TFEU empowers the European Commission to deliver a reasoned opinion to a member state when it considers that the state has failed to fulfil an obligation under the treaties. This includes any obligation arising under those EU Justice and Home Affairs instruments to which the UK has opted in since the entry into the force of the treaty of Lisbon. If the member state fails to comply, the Commission may bring the matter before the Court of Justice of the European Union. In accordance with article 260 TFEU, if the Court of Justice of the European Union finds that the member state has failed to fulfil the obligation the member state shall be required to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment.

Immigration Controls

David Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which  (a) inter-company transfers and  (b) student visas she plans to exempt from the proposed cap on levels of non-EU immigration; for what reasons the exemptions have been made; and if she will make a statement.

Damian Green: We will announce the operation of the immigration limit and precise details of how in future individual routes will work in due course. As the Prime Minister said last week, businesses have told us that intra-company transfers should not be part of the annual limit. We have listened carefully to the advice.
	Our limit applies to economic routes. We are reviewing the non-economic immigration routes separately, including the student route. We will introduce new measures, where required, to minimise abuse of the student route and tighten the system further, in support of the aim of reducing net migration to tens of thousands rather than hundreds of thousands.

Immigration: South East

Alok Sharma: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many residents of  (a) Reading West constituency,  (b) Reading,  (c) Berkshire and  (d) the South East are awaiting the completion of legacy immigration cases.

Damian Green: The UK Border Agency is unable to accurately report on the number of individuals resident in Reading West constituency, Reading, Berkshire and the South East that have an outstanding asylum case being dealt with by the Case Resolution Directorate (CRD). This is because many records that appear to be open on our database are errors or duplicates that require no further action. We also hold old or incomplete address information for a number of individuals that have lost touch with the agency.
	As reported in November 2010 to the Home Affairs Select Committee, CRD had concluded 334,500 cases up to the end of September 2010, of which 48% were duplicates, errors or cases that the agency has been unable to trace.

Council Housing: Tenants

Clive Efford: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what will be the maximum length of the fixed-term tenancies in the public housing sector announced following the Comprehensive Spending Review.

Grant Shapps: We have rightly opened a debate about how we can create a social housing system that will provide stability where it is needed; provide more choice for tenants and prospective tenants; protect vulnerable households; and, help get people into long-term employment. Existing social tenants will retain their existing rights and tenure. We will publish a policy paper setting out more details shortly.

Housing: Construction

Alison Seabeck: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government with reference to his Department's White Paper on Local Growth: realising every place's potential, Cm. 7961, paragraph 3.29, what estimate he has made of the total number of new homes to be built in each of the next six years.

Grant Shapps: We inherited a catastrophic decline in home building from the previous Government. A combination of divisive top-down targets and a public subsidy-driven approach delivered just 118,000 completions in 2009, the lowest level of house building in England and Wales in peace-time since 1923-24. This is despite the previous Government increasing the notional annual house-building target to 240,000 dwellings a year-showing the disconnect between Whitehall targets and actual house-building.
	Under the hon. Member's system, if a local authority built more homes, little of the benefit was seen by the local community. Existing residents saw only further strain on public services. We are wasting no time in taking action.
	Rewarding rather than penalising councils and communities for new homes is not only fairer, but will be far more effective. We will create a powerful framework of incentives which will return the economic benefits of growth back to communities.
	The cornerstone of this framework is the New Homes Bonus-a powerful, simple, transparent and permanent incentive. The scheme will match fund the additional council tax raised when new homes are built or brought back into use for the following six years and we will increase the incentive for building affordable homes with an additional amount. Those local authorities that take action now to consent and support the construction of new homes will receive direct and substantial benefit from their actions.
	We have set aside almost £1 billion over the spending review period and previously made clear that funding beyond those levels would come from Formula Grant. Almost £200 million will be made available to meet the costs of the scheme in 2011-12.
	I am pleased to announce that a formal consultation will be published on 12 November and I will be writing to all local authority leaders and English MPs on this.

Social Rented Housing: Coventry

Bob Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what plans he has to increase the social housing stock in Coventry.

Grant Shapps: The Department does not forecast levels of future house building and delivery will be determined by local housing plans. In the spending review we announced almost £4.5 billion investment in new affordable housing to deliver up to 150,000 affordable homes. We are giving housing associations much more flexibility on rents and use of assets, so our aspiration is to deliver as many as homes as possible through our investment and reforms. We will publish details of how these proposals will work shortly.

NHS Supply Chain

Rosie Cooper: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  what guidance his Department has issued to NHS Supply Chain on the new Part IX arrangements of the Drug Tariff;
	(2)  whether his Department places requirements on NHS Supply Chain to ensure contracts do not reduce  (a) patient choice,  (b) patient safety and  (c) a patient's rights;
	(3)  what his Department's policy is on the  (a) supply and  (b) use of unbranded medical appliances in primary and secondary care; and if he will make a statement.

Simon Burns: No guidance has been issued by the Department to the national health service or NHS Supply Chain (NHS SC) on the new Part IX arrangements of the Drug Tariff.
	NHS SC sources products and services that the NHS may wish to procure so the Department does not place any such requirements on the NHS SC with regard to patient choice, safety and rights. NHS organisations (such as hospitals) can utilise NHS SC but are not mandated to procure goods or services from it. Any procurement carried out by the NHS would need to take account, among other things, of products needed to ensure patient choice, safety and rights. As part of these procurements secondary care will decide whether it wishes to source branded or unbranded medical appliances.
	In primary care, Part IX of the Drug Tariff lists those products deemed suitable for prescribing by general practitioners and other appropriate prescribers. These products can then be dispensed by pharmacies, appliance contractors and if applicable, dispensing doctors operating Pharmaceutical Services. The Drug Tariff lists both branded and unbranded appliances as appropriate.

NHS: Productivity

Roger Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department spent on the McKinsey report on Achieving world class productivity in the NHS; and if he will make a statement.

Simon Burns: The cost of the report was £46,000 (including VAT). The report commissioned by the previous Government, was delivered on 18 March 2009.

Social Services

Emily Thornberry: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what correspondence he received from  (a) local authority leaders,  (b) councillors with lead responsibility for social care and  (c) local authority directors of social services on the effect of the outcome of the comprehensive spending review on social care provision before the announcement of the outcome of the review; and if he will place in the Library each such item of correspondence.

Paul Burstow: The Department has received six such items of correspondence between 12 May and 20 October 2010. The decision to place these in the Library will be made following consultation with the correspondents.

Social Services: Vulnerable Adults

Ian Swales: To ask the Secretary of State for Health which local authorities in  (a) the North East and  (b) England were recorded as performing poorly in safeguarding adults in service inspection reports of the Care Quality Commission in the latest period for which figures are available.

Paul Burstow: The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is the independent regulator of health and adult social care services in England. It has carried out assessments of adult social care, which can include service inspections of local authorities.
	The following information has been provided by CQC.
	Inspections of adult social care look at safeguarding and up to two outcomes drawn from the Adult Social Care Outcomes Framework.
	CQC has carried out and published 35 inspections of adult social care during the period June 2009 to November 2010. Of these two local authorities have a poor rating for 'safeguarding' in the north-east region. These are:
	Redcar and Cleveland; and
	Gateshead.
	Two further local authorities in England have a poor rating for 'safeguarding', these are:
	The Wirral, (North West Region); and
	Hounslow, (London Region).

Visual Impairment

Nicky Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  what discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the recommendation of the NHS Information Centre on registration rates by local authorities of persons with  (a) sight loss and  (b) visual impairment;
	(2)  whether he plans to require local authorities to publish the number of residents with  (a) new and  (b) existing visual impairment or sight loss;
	(3)  what recent discussions he has had with local authorities on maintaining registers of people with visual impairment or sight loss; and if he will make a statement.

Paul Burstow: Under Section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948 local authorities are required to compile and maintain classified Registers. Information on the numbers of people who fall within the scope of this act are recorded on the local authority registers since 2005 by the NHS Information Centre and SSDA902 is the statistical return for registration of blind persons and partially sighted persons.
	Officials have had a number of discussions with voluntary sector partners on the quality of data collection on registered blind and partially-sighted people. In 2008 the then Minister for Care Services commissioned the NHS Information Centre to take forward a review with the aim of improving the quality of the data collected. Officials are addressing the recommendations of the NHS IC report and will discuss these with external partners, including Royal National Institute of Blind People and local authorities, to agree the way forward.

Minimum Wage

Lisa Nandy: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average waiting time for consideration of a complaint of payment of wages below the rate of the national minimum wage was in the HM Revenue and Customs compliance team in  (a) Aberdeen,  (b) Ashton,  (c) Belfast,  (d) Birmingham,  (e) Cambridge,  (f) Cardiff,  (g) East Kilbride,  (h) Exeter,  (i) Maidstone,  (j) Teesside,  (k) Portsmouth,  (l) Romford,  (m) Sheffield,  (n) Ashton,  (o) Shipley,  (p) Wigan and  (q) Leicester in the latest period for which figures are available.

Danny Alexander: HMRC records the average elapsed time in working days from the date of registration of a complaint from a worker about non-payment of minimum wage to the date of closure of a case. The following table shows the average elapsed time, in working days, for complaint cases closed by the teams specified for the period April 2010 to the end of October 2010.
	
		
			  Team  Average elapsed time (working days) 
			 Belfast 69.09 
			 Birmingham 74.64 
			 Cambridge 90.12 
			 Cardiff 83.24 
			 Exeter 79.84 
			 Leicester 96.17 
			 Maidstone 85.34 
			 Portsmouth 99.70 
			 Romford 80.58 
			 Scotland (Aberdeen and East Kilbride) 89.75 
			 Sheffield 82.35 
			 Shipley 87.67 
			 Stockport (Ashton) 86.37 
			 Teesside 83.25 
			 Wigan 86.69 
		
	
	HMRC strives for continual improvement and are piloting new ways of responding to complaints from workers. This includes a triage approach with possible approaches being by telephone, letter or a face to face visit to the employer.

Minimum Wage

Lisa Nandy: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff HM Revenue and Customs employs in its national minimum wage regional compliance team in  (a) Aberdeen,  (b) Ashton,  (c) Belfast,  (d) Birmingham,  (e) Cambridge,  (f) Cardiff,  (g) East Kilbride,  (h) Exeter,  (i) Maidstone,  (j) Teesside,  (k) Portsmouth,  (l) Romford,  (m) Sheffield,  (n) Ashton,  (o) Shipley,  (p) Wigan and  (q) Leicester; and how many staff he expects to be in each such team in (i) 2011 and (ii) 2012.

Danny Alexander: Current staff in post figures, for the specified regional compliance teams, are in the following table.
	
		
			  2010-11 
			  Team  Number 
			 Belfast 7 
			 Birmingham 8 
			 Cambridge 7 
			 Cardiff 8 
			 Colchester 4 
			 Exeter 9 
			 Leicester 6 
			 Maidstone 7 
			 Oxford 6 
			 Portsmouth 6 
			 Romford 9 
			 Scotland (Aberdeen and East Kilbride) 12 
			 Sheffield 6 
			 Shipley 6 
			 Stockport (Ashton) 7 
			 Teesside 9 
			 Wigan 7 
		
	
	No estimate of future staff numbers is available as HMRC is currently considering future resource requirements for 2011-12 and beyond, in the context of the comprehensive spending review.

PAYE: East Ayrshire

Cathy Jamieson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 
	(1)  how many people in Kilmarnock and Loudoun constituency were found to have been  (a) overpaid and  (b) underpaid as a result of errors in the PAYE system in the most recent reconciliation process;
	(2)  if he will estimate the average repayment requested from a person resident in Kilmarnock and Loudoun constituency in respect of the recent reconciliation of PAYE liabilities.

Danny Alexander: The information requested is available only at disproportionate cost, as HMRC do not hold these data in relation to MPs' constituencies.

Public Bodies: Land

Nick Brown: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information his Department holds on land directly owned by  (a) Government Departments and their agencies and  (b) other public bodies.

Francis Maude: have been asked to reply.
	The Government's central property database, e-PIMS, currently records 4,160 land holdings for central Government Departments and their arm's length bodies, of which 4,010 are marked as freehold. e-PIMS does not hold comprehensive information on other public bodies.

Public Expenditure

Ann McKechin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what Barnett consequentials he expects there to be from his Department's Grant for Business Scheme; and if he will make a statement.

Danny Alexander: The devolved Administrations will have received Barnett consequentials on all changes to BIS's budget in line with the arrangements set out in the statement of funding policy.
	The Barnett formula is applied at departmental level rather than at individual programme level. Therefore it is not possible to quantify the amount of Barnett consequentials arising from this programme. Since the grants for business scheme is an England-only programme, it will be a matter for the devolved Administrations to decide whether to operate similar programmes in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Broadband: Expenditure

Rory Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills how much has been spent from the public purse on extending broadband availability since 1997.

Edward Vaizey: The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and its predecessor Departments have directly spent around £47 million on enabling broadband internet access since 1997. This excludes spending by the Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies. The funding went towards a number of projects covering availability and take-up.
	The breakdown of the spending is as follows:
	UK Broadband Fund: £30 million for projects to encourage broadband roll out in the regions across the UK from 2002-05
	Broadband Task Force: £86,000 from 2004-05
	Broadband Aggregation: £17 million from 2003-05
	Community Broadband Network: Part funding of £30,000 in 2004
	Broadband Awareness Portal Project: £40,000 in 2004-05
	Independent Networks Association set up: £150,000 in 2009-10.
	The Government have also now committed up to £530 million between now and 2015 to facilitate the delivery of universal broadband: stimulate private sector investment to deliver the best super-fast broadband network in Europe by 2015.

Business: Government Assistance

Simon Kirby: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what steps his Department is taking to increase the level of investment and working capital available to businesses; and if he will make a statement.

Mark Prisk: The coalition Government have articulated their ambition to ensure the flow of credit to viable SMEs and are committed to ensuring a stable business environment which gives businesses the confidence to invest and makes the UK an easy place to do business.
	The Government have published their response to the consultation on business finance issues, 'Financing a private sector recovery'. It is available at:
	http://www.bis.gov.uk/businessfinance
	There are various measures in place to support access to finance for businesses and provide the capital they need for investment and growth. The Government aim to continue to support and improve the diversity of sources and access to finance for SMEs and businesses through:
	A four-year extension to the Enterprise Finance Guarantee (EFG) making around £2 billion available to viable small companies without a credit history or lacking sufficient collateral.
	A commitment to the Enterprise Capital Fund programme of £200 million to support small businesses with the highest growth potential, providing more than £300 million of venture capital investment into the equity gap after both Government and private sector funding are combined.
	Welcoming the banks' announcement of a new £1.5 billion Business Growth Fund, to provide equity funding of between £2 million and £10 million for small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) with strong growth potential.
	The Government will also work with the British Bankers' Association's Business Finance Taskforce and the banks on a range of commitments set out in their response to the Green Paper and which will assist small businesses with access to finance issues.
	Finally, the Government continue to monitor performance against the legally binding lending commitments agreed with the Royal Bank of Scotland Group and Lloyds Banking Group. These will deliver £50 billion and £44 billion of business lending this year respectively, providing businesses with capital for investment and growth.

Higher Education: Finance

John Pugh: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills how much funding from the public purse he plans to allocate to universities in each of the next three years.

David Willetts: In the comprehensive spending review on 20 October 2010 it was announced that the higher education budget in England, excluding research would fall from £7.1 billion to £4.2 billion in 2014-15. In addition it was announced that the ring-fenced science budget would be held in cash terms at £4.6 billion per year until 2014-15. Funding allocations for each year will be announced in due course.

Local Enterprise Partnerships: Devon

Adrian Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills for what reason his Department did not proceed with the bid for a local enterprise partnership submitted by Torbay, Devon and Plymouth local authorities.

Mark Prisk: Local enterprise partnership proposals were considered against the Government's expectations regarding support from business, economic geography, local authority support, added value and ambition; the details of which are set out in the White Paper on Local Growth.
	Those partnerships which were not asked to progress to form their boards were considered as not having met one or more of these expectations. Discussions with local representatives are continuing.

Mass Media

John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills 
	(1)  what plans he has to encourage plurality and diversity in the media;
	(2)  what recent assessment he has made of levels of concentration of media ownership; and if he will make a statement.

Edward Vaizey: The Government believe it is important for the media to reflect different viewpoints at the national level and to safeguard democratic debate. Plurality and diversity in the media market are encouraged by promoting effective competition in relevant markets and regulating mergers to ensure they do not result in a loss of such competition. Statutory rules enforced by Ofcom separately place absolute restrictions on cross media ownership and are designed to prevent too great a concentration of media power.
	Where a merger is not prohibited altogether by these rules, media mergers are subject to the same competition based regulation by the independent competition authorities as all other mergers. Exceptionally, the Secretary of State for Business may intervene in a media merger to address concerns about the need to maintain plurality in media ownership.
	The statutory media ownership rules were reviewed by Ofcom last year. The Government agreed with Ofcom's recommendations. Therefore no changes will be made to the national cross-media ownership rules. However, the Government intend to bring forward legislation to remove the local cross-media ownership rules.

Regional Growth Fund

Grahame Morris: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what assessment he has made of the likely geographical distribution of successful applications to the Regional Growth Fund; and if he will make a statement.

Mark Prisk: The objectives and criteria for the Regional Growth Fund are set out in the Local Growth White Paper 'Local growth: realising every place's potential', which was published on 28 October and introduced to Parliament by an oral statement given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills made on that day,  Official Report, column 408.
	The Regional Growth Fund is a challenge fund and not ring-fenced or pre-allocated in any way to keep it flexible and responsive to the economic development needs of the country. All areas of England are eligible to bid for the Regional Growth Fund. However, one of the main objectives of the Regional Growth Fund is to strengthen the private sector in areas currently over reliant on the public sector. Clearly those areas without such over reliance will therefore have a weaker case.
	Decisions on successful proposals will be based on recommendations by the independent advisory panel, chaired by my noble Friend Lord Heseltine.

Regional Growth Fund

Nick Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what advice his Department has issued to small and medium-sized enterprises seeking to make pooled bids for funds from the Regional Growth Fund.

Mark Prisk: Guidance for all bidders for funds from the Regional Growth Fund is available from the Regional Growth Fund website, which can be accessed via the BIS website at:
	http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/regional-economic-development/regional-growth-fund
	The website provides access to the application form and guidance, and an e-mail address and a series of local telephone numbers from where further information about the Fund can be sought and questions answered. This Department is also organising a number of events across the country where potential bidders can get advice on the Fund and on making quality bids.

Regional Growth Fund

Nick Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what arrangements he has put in place for  (a) receiving and  (b) evaluating pooled bids from small and medium-sized enterprises for funds from the Regional Growth Fund.

Mark Prisk: All bids to the Regional Growth Fund should be sent to BIS either by post (details on the Regional Growth Fund website):
	http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/regional-economic-development/regional-growth-fund
	or by e-mail:
	growthfund@bis.gsi.gov.uk
	in time for the closing date of each bidding round.
	On receipt, bids will be registered and evaluated by a cross-departmental team of economists and appraisers, ahead of being put to the independent Advisory Panel, chaired by my noble Friend Lord Heseltine. Final decisions on which bids to support will be taken by Ministers based on advice from the Advisory Panel.
	The same appraisal system applies to stand alone project bids and packages of bids presented collectively, regardless of their size.

Regional Growth Fund

Nick Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what estimate he has made of the likely number of small and medium-sized enterprises that will apply for funds from the Regional Growth Fund in  (a) 2010-11 and  (b) 2011-12.

Mark Prisk: The Regional Growth Fund is new and while we anticipate several hundred applications from a wide variety of bidders, no estimation has been made of the likely number of bids to generate from small and medium-sized enterprises.
	The £1 million minimum bidding threshold allows for flexibility and encourages innovative proposals. We expect some bids will comprise packages of smaller projects form SMEs which collectively make a compelling strategic proposal. In future bidding rounds, proposals will also be accepted for strategic investment programmes, which allow managed onward investment for growth potential businesses.